Water Quality Status of Tigris River Using Index Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the effects of Al-Doura oil refinery effluent, in Baghdad city, on the water quality of the Tigris River using the Canadian Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) and Rivers Maintaining System (1967). Water samples were collected monthly from Tigris River at three stations, which are Al-Muthanna Bridge (upstream), Al-Doura Refinery (point source), and Al–Zafaraniya city (downstream) from October 2020 to April 2021. Fourteen water quality parameters were studied, namely pH (6.50-8.10), Water Temperature (WT) (5.00-27.00 °C), Electrical Conductivity (EC) (877.00-1192.00 μs/cm), Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (5.03-7.57 mg/L), Biological Oxygen demand (BOD) (0.53-2.23 mg/L), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (455.67-770.00 mg/L), Chloride (Cl) (22.66-84.97mg/L), Sulfate (SO4) (150.00-241.67 mg/L), phosphate (PO4) (0.37-0.57mg/L), Turbidity (Turb) (12.13- 86.13), Total Hardness (TH) (86.19-526.67 mg/L), Calcium (Ca) (60.53-137.61 mg/l), Magnesium (Mg) (46.62-110.45 mg/L), and Alkalinity (Alk) (86.33-171.67 mg/L). The water quality of the Tigris River ranged from 51 to 63, which indicated the marginal status of the river quality. The deterioration of water quality has appeared at Al-Dura Refinery and Al–Zafaraniya city stations, which could be attributed to the industrial activities in these regions. Generally, the results indicated that the Tigris River requires extensive treatment before it can be accepted for domestic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".